The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Trump Says—

—that the Iraq war was a huge mistake.

Does Trump saying something make that something wrong?

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.


Trump on Health Insurance, NATO, and the EU


What Can You Do In Troubled Times?


  1. realitychecker

    Does a Clintonite shit in the woods?

  2. anonone

    Yes, it apparently does.

    When Trump says that NATO is obsolete and the European countries should pay their share, the Democrats scream like it is the start of WWIII.

    When Bernie Sanders said basically the same thing in a debate with Clinton, it was mostly just crickets.

    I still despise Trump, though.

  3. Billikin

    No, Trump saying something makes it ambiguous.

  4. Webstir

    +1 Billikin

  5. Webstir

    Trump saying something makes that something benefit Trump’s bottom line, and as a distraction so that you don’t realize it. Not that he doesn’t have good company. He’s just the latest iteration.

    — Neoliberal Shock Doctrine Episode #872 “The Orange Oligarch.”

  6. EmilianoZ

    It is very possible that he got it right for the wrong reasons, which is almost as bad as getting wrong for the right reasons. We need to have a look at his line of reasoning before coming to any conclusions.

  7. In politics (construed broadly), who utters a truth when actually matters to the outcome.

  8. In fact, I might even argue that at least sometimes, who said something matters more than what they said, true or not.

  9. Ché Pasa

    It doesn’t matter because he’ll say anything.

  10. Tom


    When someone is right, even if for the wrong reasons, they are right period. If Trump does the right things even if it is to bribe the Rust Belt to re-elect him, he is still doing what Obama failed to do.

  11. Hugh

    Libertarians are against the Fed, for privacy, against the War on Drugs, and supposedly against foreign wars and involvements. A lot of the philosophy behind their positions is batshit but not entirely.

    I think the same applies to Trump. The Democrats are in full on blame anyone but themselves mode. Most of their criticisms of Trump reflect this and can be discounted. The Democrats can’t come up with a solid case against Trump without abandoning their own failed policies and rich donors. So they don’t make it.

    What Trump is good at is legitimizing tropes. Most of the country has known for a while that the war in Iraq was a disaster. But when Trump says it, it is the first time that someone in the overclass does it, and so legitimizes it. Trump did not kill the TPP. That had been done by many others. But when Trump came out against it, the elite consensus on it was broken, and the perception that it was dead became officially acceptable. Of course, Clinton also came out against the TPP. The difference was that nobody believed her. They did believe Trump.

    Re Europe, I think that a US presence in Europe remains important. I do not like what Bush/Obama have done to the NATO mission, but looking at the slow motion train wreck that is the EU and EZ, it’s clear that 70 years after the end of the Second World War, Europe still does not have its act together. So as flawed, even malign, as US policy toward Europe currently is, it still plays a significant stabilizing role.

    A serious flaw that I already see in Trump is that he has no apparent ability to prioritize, as his recent Tweeter rants against Meryl Streep, Carl Lewis, and SNL illustrate. Much the same can be seen in his foreign policy. Europe is of huge interest to the US. At the same time, Israel is at best extremely marginal to US interests and at worst a decent sized negative. Yet Trump is blowing the Europeans off while being an unabashed suck up to the Israelis. It makes no sense and is a recipe for failure. This is likely to be the story with Trump, that he fails just in different ways than his predecessors.

  12. If you begin with the premise that nearly everything Hair Furor says or Tweets is a lie, his “blind-hog-finds-acorn” truths engender this reaction.

    No one with a functioning brain stem can give a logical rationale for why the Iraq War was NOT a mistake. Trump has made no great revelation here.

  13. Hugh

    Tom: “When someone is right, even if for the wrong reasons, they are right period.”

    Wrong. Libertarians are against the Fed because they want to go back to a gold standard. They support privacy rights not just for drug use but to discriminate against gays or pretty much any other minority.

  14. dude

    Hmmm. What has Trunp said about Vietnam?

  15. dude

    A moment’s googling says: Trump

    a) avoided being drafted via student and health deferments
    b) made fun of John McCain
    c) promises to take care of veterans

    I can find no reference to his opinions on the value or purpose behind the Vietnam War.

    Like all things Trump: cypher.

  16. dude

    Oh yeah, he attended New York Military Academy.


  17. realitychecker

    @ Billikin

    “No, Trump saying something makes it ambiguous.”

    I think that may actually be the best answer, although others have also made some good points above.

    I think it’s too cheap and easy to start reasoning from the premise that Trump is a stupid man. I think he probably does have the IQ he claims. And, allowing this to be part of my starting premise, I see that his SOP seems to be to say things that are essentially ambiguous from the POV of many or all of the interested parties on any given issue.

    It then occurs to me that since such ambiguity creates uncertainty in the minds of players who have grown so accustomed to the comforts of certainty in their elite bubble worlds, that he is creating, over and over, the ideal mindset that I would want to instill in those whom I intended to be negotiating with.

    And, it seems to be working for hiim so far.

  18. @EmilianoZ, No, doing the right thing for the wrong reason does not make it not a right thing. It doesn’t mean that the person is a good person, but a right thing is right regardless of the person doing it or the reason they do it.

    In like manner, truth is truth regardless of the person speaking it or their purpose in doing so.

    “No, Trump saying something makes it ambiguous.” I think that may actually be the best answer…”

    No. “Vietnam was a mistake,” is in no way ambiguous. It is not ambiguous when I say it, when you say it, or when Donald Trump says it. Ambiguity can be the product of the speaker, but not in a four word, simple declaritive sentence.

  19. highrpm

    It doesn’t matter because he’ll say anything. as did obummer & co. which is why the demo’s are moving in this weekend. and why the repuggers will be moving out whenever. samo samo over and over endlessly…

  20. peonista

    Trump is saying things “from the bully pulpit” that most people agree with. Most people agree the Iraq war was a disaster. Most agree the media dropped the ball on the WMD story. Most agree the intelligence services dropped the ball on the WMD story. Most people agree corporations have shafted the American worker. If you agree with these facts when Trump states them it feels like you are siding with Trump and approve of him.
    The problem is not Trump saying obvious truths or us agreeing with Trump on these issues. The problem is Obama and the Democrats did NOT say this stuff “from the bully pulpit”-loudly, often, Bengazi-like. The Dems failed to cite the obvious failures of the establishment because they ARE the establishment. This has put the democratic rank and file in the awkward position of agreeing with Trump or else switching positions and defending indefensible policy.

  21. He said it was the largest mistake, which objectively speaking is true.

    Just because Trump says something partially right does not mean it is right.

    Just because Trump says something right, does not mean he is going to do anything about it – otherwise we would have millions of people able to do the job of president.

    Otherwise I would have gone in A in calculus class, because I always knew the answer was wrong – but that does not mean I knew what the right answer was.

    ( )

  22. sorry not objectively true.

  23. dude

    Iraq: huge mistake because of what? Why?

    Faulty intelligence seems to be the his theme, but that doesn’t talk about whether a proclivity toward regime change is-or-is not a mistake in the scheme of things. That is why I asked about his view on Vietnam, but you could pick other countries to explore his world-view.

    I don’t think he has a coherent world-view, but I am concerned about how he is trying to construct one through twits-and-tweets. Where is he really going with his critique of Iraq?

    I submit: he doesn’t even know.

  24. Billikin

    Two points. First, Trump’s tweets reveal his priorities. One of his major priorities is self protection, which he manifests by retaliation or preemptive attack.

    Second, Scott Adams, based upon his hypnosis training, calls Trump a Master Persuader. There is a lot to that, but I think that Trump works on instinct. peonista is right. When Trump says things that “everybody knows” and you agree with, you feel, or start to feel, that Trump is on your side. That is especially so when he emphasizes it, as in “huge mistake”. In hypnosis this is called joining, and the hypnotist uses it to overcome resistance to suggestion. It makes the subjects more receptive to what the hypnotist says next. (I have also had hypnosis training. :))

  25. Peter

    For a number of years I’ve seen first hand how the Clintonites/liberals suffered a communications breakdown and lost the ability to understand what people, not of their tribe, were trying to say to them. Most of these voices were from the radical left but not all and slurs such as sparkle ponies and purists along with nasty reinterpretations of what people wrote became common.

    Then along came the Donald who everyone in the tribe knew couldn’t vanquish their photoshopped Queen. Trump spoke truth to the parasite class of politicians without ambiguity that they were failures, both parties. He also kept it simple describing the Red Queen accurately as a thirty year long string of failure and crookedness and this sent the true believers over the edge to a Tower of Babel like break with reality and much of the rest of humanity.

    Now anything Trump says or does must be rephrases, reinterpreted and rejected as evil foreign language. As Ian has learned anyone who even accepts some of Trump’s plans or moves as possibly positive is to be targeted with threats and rejection to protect the tribe. The Carrier deal Trump made is a telling example and even here and on other so called progressive sites it was mostly translated as bullying or bribery with little or no empathy for working class people. The latest announcement of more US jobs from GM is being translated as business as usual but along with Ford, Chrysler and possibly the foreign manufactures this is Trump’s BAU.

  26. bruce wilder

    Most argument including almost all political rhetoric is structured as hypnosis, not as proof of a theorem. Almost all broadcast news as well as commercial advertising is structured as propaganda; the most sophisticated campaigns make use of “guerilla marketing” and pr techniques and extend to using all forms of social media, including (yes!) blog comments.

    We are fish swimming in this sea. This is water and it is wet.

    It isn’t “fake news” that is killing us, it is the no knowledge. Fish do not die when water is wet. Fish die when the water contains no oxygen.

    Oxygen is not wet. It is not anything we can taste or see or feel.

  27. BlizzardOfOz

    I question whether what is called “coherent world view” is important or even beneficial for a President. Lacking such is one of the things that FDR was criticized for. He struck a contrast to the old order represented by Coolidge and especially Hoover, men who had a strong world view which was in the end too rigid, so that they were broken by events.

    What we need instead is judgement, vision, integrity, courage. From that standpoint Trump seems to compare favorably to the past several presidents (admittedly a low bar).

  28. dude

    I am trying to imagine FDR constructing a world-view in response to newspaper headlines and reactions to fireside chats. He may not have had one, but he had to construct one before all was said and done.

  29. different clue

    I am pressed for time and cannot do the copy-pasting needed to support a case. So for now let me just expand forward from what Peter said up above.

    Riverdaughter’s blog The Confluence has become a perfect storm of Klintonite Koolaid Kult tribalism. She has recently written that she intends to make changes to her blog roll. In practice, that means she will disfellowship those blogs which were not pro-Clinton enough.

    I predict! The following three blogs will CERTAINLY be disfellowshipped . . .
    Ian Welsh.
    Naked Capitalism.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis.

  30. Willy

    Neoliberals and neocons just need to get a room already.

    Per the post, there are political advantages to Trump saying such things, even if one’s politics sides with the facts.

  31. different clue

    Riverdaughter’s blog The Confluence has become a stagnant sump of Klinton Kult Koolaid tribalism. She has recently written that she will adjust her blogroll. I take that to mean that she will disfellowship those blogs which were not pro-Clinton enough.

    I predict! She will disfellowship the following three blogs:
    1. Ian Welsh
    2. Naked Capitalism
    3. Sic Semper Tyrannis.

  32. different clue

    . . . sorry about the repeat. It looked as though my comment had not registered. . . .

  33. realitychecker

    @ Bill H

    I agree with the first part of your above comment, but when you turn to addressing me, I must tell you that you completely missed my point, which was about Trump’s negotiating strategy/tactic, not definitional as to the meaning of “ambiguity.” I’m sure if you will re-read with this clarification in mind, you will get what I was saying.

  34. realitychecker

    @ Peter

    Your comment above was superb, IMO. Right on the money.

    And those realities aren’t going to change anytime soon, so we need to strap ourselves in for a long and wild ride.

    Popcorn will be required.

  35. Hugh

    After Trump is inaugurated, the tires will hit the asphalt and we will see just how much is real and how much is bluster, how much is good and how much is awful. I am not optimistic. I see Trump as a phenomenon of late stage kleptocracy, part of the problem, not part of the solution. And I remain seriously concerned that we are running out time to deal with the effects of global warming and overpopulation that are already locked in. I see Trump as yet more wasting time we do not have.

  36. Peter


    You, I and most Boomers may not have to interact with the Clintonite continuum much but most everyone else does and will. With their control of most of the media, social networks and their relatively large numbers I wonder what further damage they will attempt to inflict.

    Right now at EW there is some type of junior G-man demanding I show respect for Brennan and give him the benefit of the doubt about his leaking the latest trash attack on Trump and then lying about that.

    Putin and Lavrov both had harsh words for Obama and the Clintonites today and now they control the political/ethical high ground on this madness which is not a great thing.

  37. Hugh

    Interestingly, John Brennan was Obama’s transition chief for intelligence and chief of staff to former CIA Director George Tenet (under Bush). He was Obama’s original choice to head the CIA back in 2009 but had to withdraw after he came under fire for supporting domestic spying, rendition for torture, and enhanced interrogation techniques, i.e. torture, although not waterboarding. Obama made him his counter-terrorism adviser and finally got him in at the CIA in 2013. Another example of Obama never giving up on a bad idea.

  38. wendy davis

    to Peter, et. al.: knowing that herr trump had met w/ reps from monsanto and bayer after his first press conference as prez-elect, i poked about a bit today to see if i could discover more about it.

    i’m wondering how you would feel about his giving his okey-dokey to the deal that they say would keep/add some measly 800 jobs in the US given what sort of multinationals both are and provide. this piece only scratches the surface, imo, but it’s an easy read.

    i did check, and there’s an anti-trust division in the DoJ, and that job is also senate confirmable. obviously he could nominate a person who would okay the deal (after a short investigation, of course).

    oh, and woooot! obama just commuted chelsea manning’s sentence; she’ll be out on may 17!

  39. Peter


    Monsanto is not my favorite company but their current workforce of 25,000 is at least partially threatened by their huge financial problems/loses. If Papa Bayer is promising to save and add to those high paying professional jobs that is an unusual and promising reason to allow the buyout. The last corporate buyout Warren Buffett did was followed by 7,000 worker firings to make the profit level he demanded possible. I don’t know if anti-trust has much meaning today and we still keep sufficient troops in Germany to make them behave.

    Have you noticed that many food products are listing that they contain GMO components without any labeling laws? It seems they are using it almost like a product promotion.

  40. Ché Pasa


    The problem with Scott Adams “Master Persuader” trope is that Trump is not really that good at it. In the real world, as opposed to the world of entertainment, the term of art is “Master Con Artist.” And among the political class, Obama is orders of magnitude better at it than Trump.

    Here’s why: Trump’s style is to divide, alienate, attack and insult. That will con or persuade some, sure. But it’s not a persuasive tactic overall, as we can easily see from how little regard Trump is held in by a significant portion of the population. He has made it a point to alienate them, so they 
    reject him. The rejection appears to be growing.

    He says things that people want to hear — about the Iraq debacle or whatever — but so? Who is paying attention, and more importantly, who believes him? He’s said all kinds of things about all sorts of topics, in a blizzard of nonstop yadda yadda, and yakkity yak, some of which will be contradicted tomorrow, if not in the same sentence or tweet. Just because he says something that’s either true in an objective sense or is appealing to someone’s ideological perspective doesn’t mean that he believes it or that it means anything to him, it’s just “talk.” That includes his insults and deliberate attacks and alienation. It’s all just “talk.”

    It persuades his loyalists and defenders, but they appear to be a shrinking cohort. The voters were not persuaded by either major candidate, but one of them got far more votes than the other, and that is a sign that his “Master Persuader”/”Master Con” act did not work the way Scott and some of Trump’s other defenders would like you to believe. I think Trump and his people know that full well. They’re not stupid. On the other hand, I think they know that the ones they haven’t been able to con or persuade are not going to be converted, in fact their resistance and rejection will grow in proportion to Trump’s insistence on attacking and alienating them.

    This does not end well.


  41. sid_finster

    @ Peonista: To the extent Trump offers value, it is not just because he says things that most people agree with, but he says things that most people recognize as true, but are not permitted to say in public.

  42. wendy davis

    @ Peter. thanks for responding, i didn’t know if you and any others would see my question. but hoo-boy; i’m not sure if i’ve known anyone online who was so casual about monsanto as to say: ‘Monsanto is not my favorite company…’ , although some of their shills got on my diaries about the evil they are doing and have done to the planet and food and crop sovereignty over the past decade. many cited norman borlaug, who didn’t tinker with gene-spicing for short-stemmed wheat, but used selective breeding practices, a whole n’other ball game

    and of course bill gates and his friends are behind monsanto all the way (especially bio-wrecking africa), dunno if he has shares in bayer per se, but he believes that technology can save the world (including an implantable 5-year birth control chip operated by remote control, dunno ‘whose control’)! i don’t. 64 nations have banned genetically-modified food (maybe all crops), and many others have strict labeling laws. campbell’s is the only conglomerate i know that’s voluntarily labeling foods you can read what they say, see if it makes sense.

    but anyway, given that the merger requires ‘regulatory approval’, and yes, i’ve long believed that germany would flinch, i’d imagine that the doj’s anti-trust unit would be the agency that will or won’t. monsanto clearly wants the merger in part due to the name recognition, and due to the fact that as growers grasp how dangerous their pesticides and herbicides are, they’re balking. the second and third-year yields are known to be abysmal, and by then the soil is so depleted of micronutrients that it’s all but sterile. anyway, enough of my preaching, eh? (smile)

  43. neoliberalclownkilla

    If you think Trump isn’t a master persuader you are a complete idiot. There is no way in hell Trump becomes President if he is not a master persuader. He is a lesser evil than Hillary too, and all you nitwits who are obsessed with outdated utilitarian ethics and voted Obama in twice based on that moral theory, can suck on that long and hard. He is not even president and he exposed the feckless Dumbcraps to be the corporatist fascist loving whores that they are- vis a vis Nato, CIA, and trade deals. NOT ONCE did the fucking Dems say shit about changing trade policy or Nato policy, let alone criticize the CIA for overstepping their functional role. I’m glad that the Dems are dying, they are completely worthless spineless cowards and addicted to power and wealth.

  44. realitychecker

    @ neoliberalclownkilla


  45. Peter


    I don’t think someone using the word evil to describe a greedy capitalist company does much good unless they plan to lead the mobs of the righteous to burn the whitecoats at the stake. Just as I’ll never learn to love the Bomb neither will I love GMO but I have learned to live with them. Bayer is offering to buy Monsanto outright for about $130 per share, Germans don’t merge they conquer so the Monsanto name may disappear possibly replaced by that cute Bayer aspirin baby.

    I’ve read the warnings and projections about soil depletion and problems with GM crops and our industrialized farming before that but since the ’70s corn yields have tripled reaching about 13 billion bushels produced last year and yields are projected to continue increasing. Iowa produces three times more corn than all of Mexico.

    Another factoid I didn’t know is that 95% of our corn farms are family owned and 30% are operated by women. These men and women have been handling and using poisons their whole adult life because it is an integral part of farming and even the organic pesticides we used in the ’50s were poisons. Low-till or no-till farming practices have improved soil erosion loses dramatically and soil fertility but they require more herbicide use so there is a tradeoff between GMO use and CO2 production and costs.

    The countries who are rejecting GMO crops now have various reasons and the right to do that. Russia is one of them and their capitalist farmers see it as a market opportunity where they would be the prime supplier of organics to the wealthy European market while their government continues its research in GMO’s for possible future uses.

  46. Hugh

    Tell me again why the creation of anti-competitive monopolies or near monopolies is good for business, but when it comes to workers and killing their wages and benefits, corporations can’t get enough competitivity.

    Trump is coming into office with a 40% approval rating. So I don’t think the idea that he is a master persuader is tenable. He, like Bernie Sanders, capitalized on a tsunami of discontent in the country, but that is different from persuading. It is more like running to the head of a parade and then claiming you are leading it. As I said previously, I thought it would take about 3 years for most of his supporters to get sick of him because I do not think he is going to deliver for them. In interviews with his supporters on television, they are saying they’ll give him six months to make changes they can feel. So the timeframe of getting sick of Trump may be shorter than I envisioned. This is certainly possible when you have dopes like DeVos saying that guns should be kept in schools to ward off grizzlies.

  47. Hugh

    From 2014,

    Most farms in Illinois have grown over the years. Of the state’s 75,000 farms, nearly 8,000 (~10 percent) are 1,000 acres or larger. However, those 8,000 farms maintain over half of all of the state’s farmland. The idea that these big, “corporate” farms are industrializing the agricultural landscape is yarn easily spun to the uninformed, but one that is blatantly incorrect. In 2012 Illinois had 3,716 corporate farms. This seems impressive, especially when the prototypical “family farm” continues to disappear, but 90 percent of these so-called “corporate” farms were, in fact, what the U.S. Department of Agriculture refers to as “family corporations”. In other words, they were still family farms. The land was not owned by Cargill, Monsanto, or any of the other large, multinational corporations often blamed for the demise of farming (although such corporations do have considerable influence in modern U.S. agribusiness), but for tax purposes the family had decided to create a business. In reality, only 0.5 percent of Illinois farms are non-family, corporately-owned entities. These non-family, corporate-owned farms work an equally small percentage of the state’s total agricultural land – 0.7 percent. The Illinois “corporate” agricultural landscape mirrors exactly that of the entire United States: 0.5 percent of farms, 0.7 percent of farmland…numbers that have changed little over the past four decades.


    In Illinois, and across much of the rest of the Corn Belt, well over 50 percent of all farmland in most counties is rented.

    Also about 40% of the corn crop goes to biofuels, chiefly ethanol.

  48. BlizzardOfOz

    Hugh – 40% approval, according to the same pollsters that said he had at best a 20% chance of winning? I’m sure that *this time* their numbers are totally accurate, especially now that there’s now no reality check like an election to hold them accountable.

  49. wendy davis

    @ Peter
    oh, my. i’ll call monsanto (and cargill, syngenta, bayer, etc) . evil at my pleasure, but there’s so much to unpack here that it will have to wait until another day. there’s so much news breaking right now, esp. but please tell me in the meantime which ‘organic’ pesticides in the 50s were poisons?

    funny seeing you call out capitalist farmers, though. in the end, when time allows, i may do an op-ed about all this. we’ll see. india is ground zero re: monsanto evil. i don’t have the time to read this, but i hope he addresses the fact that monsanto has claimed patents on even Wild and Sacred plants in india.

  50. Hugh

    BlizofOz, Trump won the election but lost the popular vote. He also had high negatives throughout the Presidential campaign. So a 40% approval rating is unsurprising. Unless Trump starts delivering measurable improvements to those who voted for him, fast, that 40% could be a peak, not a trough.

  51. Hugh

    Just to quantify this further, Trump received 62,979,879 votes per wiki and per the Census there are 231,556,622 Americans eligible to vote. So Trump was elected President by 30.2% of eligible voters. 92,671,979 Americans eligible to vote, or about half again as many as all those who voted for Trump, did not vote at all.

    As I keep saying, do the math and don’t bet against the math.

  52. Ché Pasa

    Of course polls are suspect. So is the vote count. We don’t know and we can’t know what is correct. That’s built in and purposeful.

    It allows our rulers to manipulate the beliefs and actions of the ruled to the advantage of the rulers.

    That’s true regardless of who sits in the big chair in the West Wing — or in Trump Tower as the case may be.

    But there are definite if anecdotal signs that Mr. Trump’s popularity was never high to begin with and it’s not getting higher. It may well be falling — as the polls indicate. The propaganda against him and his cronies appears to be having some effect among the public, but in this sort of contest for dominance and rule, the public is at best a prop.

    The contest is between factions of the ruling clique, and it is obviously serious. I doubt it’s really over Mr. Trump’s likely policies — because most of the ones we’ve heard about are pretty standard right-wing Republican/Christianist/White Supremacist boilerplate that serve and reinforce the ruling neoLibCon consensus. Their focus is different than policies of the recent past, but their premise is pretty much the same.

    There are so many things he could do to upend the ruling paradigm if he really wanted to, but there is no sign he will do any of those  things, he will simply accelerate the ongoing rightist-reactionary trend we’ve been living with for many years.

    That will be disastrous for many, many people, but just as is the case now, those who come out on top won’t care. I doubt the losers will even get a “too bad, so sad” from the winners.

    The best the Rabble can hope for under the circumstances is that things won’t go completely to hell immediately. That was also the hope when Bush 2 was lawlessly installed in the White House those many years ago. Well, we had almost 9 months of relative serenity before all hell broke loose (three months longer than I predicted at the time.) We’re living with the consequences of those crises now.

    Those consequences aren’t going away, nor will those crises be resolved because Trump is in the White House. Instead, there will be a whole set of new crises and consequences, some of them the direct result of the conflict among the ruling clique over whether or not Mr. Trump should be allowed to rule on behalf of the oligarchy and kleptocracy he is a member of and he so clearly represents, or should there be some kind of intervention.

    We’ll see.

  53. Peter


    Let’s not get hung up on another old lost cause. Now we have Trump’s plans to destroy the GW fear and lying based agenda which is driving the Believers into a frenzy.

    I think most of India’s cotton farmers have already converted to the new GMO seed so Ms Shiva’s lies about a connection between the Monsanto seed and farmer suicide there only brought her attention outside the country. There was praise and speaking engagements offered by those who wanted to believe the worst and they have kept her busy speaking since that original known fake news story was released.

  54. Ché Pasa

    Noted “Clintonite” Jeremy Scahill explained it all for us at the NoFascistUSA gathering last December.

  55. wendy davis

    @ Peter. okey-dokey. i was just coming back to say that as obummer has denied clemency for leonard peltier last night, i’m utterly outta steam.

  56. wendy davis

    @ Ché Pasa: i didn’t have time to listen to all of it, but the part i heard reminded me of john pilger’s: ‘THIS WEEK THE ISSUE IS NOT TRUMP. IT IS OURSELVES.’

  57. Ché Pasa

    I think Jeremy is trying to look to the future and what to do about it. Reliance on a decadent and corrupt political system isn’t going to do the trick — it will always produce a Bush, a Hillary, Obama, or a Trump…

    It’s a failed system. We have to look beyond it. Why else would he be at a RevCom event? Hm?

  58. wendy davis

    i wasn’t familiar with revcom. this must be it, then?

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén